2011 Archeobotanical Analysis of Archived Soil from the James Fort
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Archeobotanical Analysis of Archived Soil from the James Fort Period Well Report Prepared for the Jamestown Rediscovery Project, Historic Jamestown May 18, 2011 A single soil sample collected from ER 2158 Layer Z within Stratum 177 of the James Fort well (ca. 1611-1617) was submitted for macro-botanical analysis based on its potential to contain tobacco seeds. Archeobotanical analysis of related contexts was accomplished by Steven N. Archer in 2006. Archer’s research provided the first systematic study of macro-floral remains preserved within the well, and documented the presence of tobacco (Nicotiana sp.). Archer conclusively identified one tobacco seed, and tentatively identified three others. These specimens represented a unique find, heretofore being the only archaeological tobacco seeds recovered from the period of the colonial encounter. There are myriad challenges to the recovery of archaeological tobacco seeds: They are extremely small, and the manner of tobacco cultivation includes topping the flowers of the growing plant to enhance leaf growth, necessarily preventing the propagation of seed. The current research effort was motivated by a desire to recover additional tobacco seeds from the well which could be used for destructive analysis (i.e. DNA testing) to determine more specific details about the kind of tobacco utilized and produced at the site during the James Fort period. Methods A single 975ml soil sample (JR2158Z, STR 177) collected in 2006 and archived under refrigeration was submitted to the archeobotanical laboratory of Justine McKnight in Severna Park, Maryland for processing and macro-floral analysis. The sample was completely waterlogged, with vegetable material and charcoal flecks visible in a matrix of wet soil. Archeobotanical materials were separated from sample sediment using a gentle water-screening technique through nested geological sieves following standard procedures (Pearsall 2001:83-84; Kenward et al. 1980:8-11) and used with success by Archer in his 2006 study. Sieve apertures measured 4mm, 2mm, 1mm, 500µ, and 250µ. Material measuring less than 250µ in diameter was discarded. The sample was processed in small batches, approximately 25ml at a time, in order to minimize abrasion of delicate plant artifacts. The 500µ and 250µ fractions were predominantly composed of coarse sand. To facilitate the recovery of small seeds, these fractions were subjected to additional processing: Each was placed in a conical sedimentation flask and gently swirled to produce a mild centrifuge action. Organic material separated from the sandy matrix and was poured onto a series of filter papers for review beneath the microscope. The residual sandy matrices were also scanned under magnification for the remains of seeds and cultivated plant parts. All sample components were kept moist during analysis, and all materials (both archeobotanical and residual) were packaged in deionized water for storage. All archeobotanical remains encountered within the >4mm size fraction were isolated for identification. Nutshells, seeds, cultivated plant remains and miscellaneous plant materials were removed from the >2mm/<4mm size fraction. Seeds, cultivated plant remains, and identifiable botanical miscellany were isolated from the >1mm/<2mm, >500µ/<1mm, and >250µ/<500µ fractions. Identifications were routinely attempted on all seed, nut and miscellaneous plant remains, and on a sub-sample of 10 randomly selected wood charcoal fragments and 10 randomly selected non- carbonized wood fragments (>4mm in size) in accordance with standard practice (Pearsall 2000). Identifications of all classes of botanical remains were made to the genus level when possible, to the family level when limited diagnostic information was available, and to the species level only when the assignment could be made with absolute certainty. Tentative identifications are preceded by “cf” (“compares favorably” with). All identifications were made under low magnification (10X to 40X) with the aid of standard texts (Edlin 1969; Kozlowski 1972; Hoadley 1990; Martin and Barkely 1961; Panshin and deZeeuw 1980; Schopmeyer 1974) and checked against plant specimens from a modern reference collection representative of the flora of James City County, Virginia. Results Organic preservation within the JR2158Z, STR 177 sample was excellent, with a great variety of carbonized (burned) and uncarbonized plant remains recovered through the waterscreening process. The residual fraction matrices contained a range of artifacts and ecofacts, which are generally described in Table 01. Wood remains are noted, where present, in the size fractions from which they were not isolated for identification. Table 01: Materials observed within the fraction matrices. Sample JR2158Z, STR 177. sample number JR2158Z sample description well fill, pollen sample collection/processing date 4/19/2006, 5/9/2011 volume (ml) 975 Quartzitic gravel, brick fragments, oystershell, bone fragments, >4mm glazed redware gravel, brick fragments, deciduous leaf fragments, wood >2mm/<4mm fragments, eggshells, fish scales, bone, amber glass coarse sand, brick fragments, bone, deciduous leaf fragments, >1mm/<2mm wood fragments, eggshells, fish scales sand, gastropods, insect parts, insect eggs, brick fragments, deciduous leaf fragments, wood fragments, spherical carbon >500µ/<1mm residue sand, insect parts, insect eggs, wood fragments, spherical carbon >250µ/<500µ residue Table 02: Inventory of archeobotanical remains recovered from Sample JR2158Z, STR 177. sample number JR2158Z from STR 177 sample description well fill, pollen sample collection date, processing date 4/19/2006, 5/9/2011 volume (ml) 975 WOOD (charcoal) (no of fragments > 4mm) 81 Carya sp. (hickory) 2 Quercus sp. (white oak group) 6 Quercus sp. (red oak group) 1 Pinus sp. (pine) 1 total identified fragments 10 WOOD (not carbonized) (no of fragments >4mm) 560 Quercus sp. (red oak group) 2 Pinus sp. (pine) 8 total identified fragments 10 NUTSHELL (not carbonized) (no of fragments > 2mm) 37 Carya sp. (hickory) 35 JUGLANDACEAE (walnut family) 2 SEEDS (not carbonized) (no of specimens) 40 Amaranthus sp. (pigweed) 1 Cucurbita sp. (squash) seed fragment 5 cf. Fragaria sp. (strawberry) 1 Liriodendron tulipifera (yellow poplar) basal fragment of achene 1 Mollugo verticillata (carpetweed) 2 Nicotiana sp. (tobacco) 4 Panicum/Setaria (panic/foxtail grass) 1 Phytolacca americana (poke) 1 Portulaca oleracea (purselane) seed 1 Rubus sp. (raspberry or blackberry) seed 4 Vaccinium sp. (blueberry) 5 CYPERACEAE (sedge family) three types represented 6 POACEAE (grass family) 5 cf. POLYGONACEAE (knotweed family) 1 UMBELLIFERAE (carrot family) 2 MISCELLANEOUS (not carbonized) (no of specimens) 24 cf. Cucurbita sp. (squash) rind fragments 2 monocot stem fragment 2 fungal fructification 4 bud 2 Quercus sp. (oak) flowers 10 unidentifiable rind/peel 1 amorphous 3 Sample JR2158Z contained a wide array of plant taxa which collectively document a cultural assemblage composed of fuel waste, foodstuff, building debris, seed stock, and weedy vegetation emblematic of an anthropogenic landscape. An inventory of the archeobotanical materials identified within the sample is presented in Table 02. The macro-botanical remains are discussed by general type below. Wood: Analyzed wood remains were limited to fragments >4mm in diameter. Eighty-one fragments of wood charcoal and 560 fragments of uncarbonized wood were recovered from this largest size fraction. Ten fragments from each wood population were randomly selected for identification. Identification of the random sub-sample of charcoal fragments documented the presence of white oak (Quercus sp. LEUCOBALNUS group) (six fragments), hickory (Carya sp.) (two fragments), red oak (Quercus sp. ERYTHROBALANUS group) (one fragment), and pine (Pinus sp.) (one fragment). The woods represented within the charcoal assemblage suggest the intentional selection of locally available, high-calorie woods for fuel. The uncarbonized wood was dominated by pine (Pinus sp.) (eight fragments) with red oak (Quercus sp. ERYTHROBALANUS group) (2 fragments). Figure 01: Comparison of carbonized and uncarbonized wood types identified. 100% 90% 80% 70% Pinus sp. (pine) 60% Quercus sp. (red oak 50% group) 40% Quercus sp. (white oak 30% group) 20% Carya sp. (hickory) 10% 0% wood charcoal n=81 wood (not carbonized) n = 560 Nutshells: Two species of nuts were identified within the JR2158Z sample. Thick-walled hickory (Carya sp.) shell fragments totaled 35 specimens. Two fragments of black walnut (Juglans nigra) shell were also recovered. All nutshells were uncarbonized. Seeds: Uncarbonized seeds from the well sample totaled 40 specimens. An array of economically important species are represented, including four excellently preserved tobacco (Nicotiana sp.) seeds (see Figure 02). The remains of comestible plants include pigweed (Amaranthus sp.) (one seed), squash (Cucurbita sp.) (five seed fragments), purselane (Portulaca oleracea) (one seed), raspberry or blackberry (Rubus sp.) (four seeds), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) (five seeds), poke (Phytolacca americana) (one seed) and perhaps strawberry (cf. Fragaria sp.) (one seed). Other species represented include yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) (one fragment from the base of achene), carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata) (two seeds), panic or foxtail grass (Panicum/Setaria) (one seed), sedge (CYPERACEAE) (six seeds conforming to three basic types), grass (POACEAE) (five seeds), carrot (UMBELLIFERAE) (two seeds) and possibly